I'm not sure what your question is, but yes, you need to indicate whether you have a release for any body part or any indistinguishable people, even if they're really just blurry pixels way in the background.
IMO, a presumably unforeseen consequence is that if you have the blurry pixels and indicated them as 'more than four' people, they'll show up in searches as having 'more than 4 people'. I'm sure if a buyer ticks that they want 'more than four people' (or one, two, three or four) they actually want to see discernable people.
What consequence have you noticed?

The founder of Alamy, James West, explicitly instructed attendants of the Alamy contributor meeting several years back that if there is any sort of person in a picture we have to select it as such.

No matter if a blurry silhouetted person far away in the background or just the tip of a finger. All the instances require a release in order to list the image as RF at Alamy.

This is really funky for certain images but in the end they just want to cover their a$$.

That's the deal with Alamy.

This is a standard requirement - even at the micros (at least the top tier sites).  It's a policy that has been around at least 5 years.

I have images of my own, with my own hands, with blue gloves on them - and they do have a release attached.

DT routinely rejects images with just the head cut off if you attach a release. And SS just did that to me recently as well.

But thanks for the heads up on Alamy - I just went back and added releases to all my hand shots.

It's been a stated Alamy policy since I started there, in March '09, so I don't know when it started.

iStock is odd. I once saw a post in critique once by someone who had a rejection for a hand only and he was told that was right, he needed an MR.
A few months after, I took a photo which had part of my husband's hand and he was all ready to sign an MR, but his pal who was supposed to be coming round that evening (and hopefully would have agreed to witness a signing) couldn't come, so I reshot without his hand actually showing, which wasn't really what I wanted.
Over a year later, I saw someone ask if a similar photo to mine (in the amount of hand showing) needed an MR and was told No.
It really just depends which inspector you get, or which admin answers a question in the forum.

That said, Alamy is definitely pickier. Certainly with regard to blurred out of focus 'pixels' in the background that iStock would accept.

Some Alamy contributors are either outright liars or unbelievably efficient MR garnerers. For example, look up "Edinburgh Tattoo" and select RF only. After you've gathered your breath at the number of photos that have nothing to do with Edinburgh and/or the Tattoo, have a close look at some of the ET photos that claim to have MRs for everyone in the photo and assess how likely it is that they have them. Clue: look for the contributor who has 17 images, some of which were taken in Moscow, not Edinburgh ...

I don't have it on hand but I can assure you that you are not the only one who couldn't really grasp the point of submitting a release for a dot in the background that was recognizable as a person but completely unidentifiable.

I don't even mind the needs-MR thing; but they really should think about what a buyer wants if they positively search on 'one person' or 'more than four people'. With one person, they might well want just a toe (e.g. they may want a person's toe wearing a toe ring rather than a toe ring isolated on white), but like I said elsewhere, I'm sure if they positively search on 'more than four people', even for editorial use, they want to see the actual people, not a vague smudge.